The owner deserved the police presence yes, he was in the wrong for his dog being outside. He admitted that his dog was outside, he took the blame. He
does not deserve to have the blame of the dog being shot, the cop pulled the trigger not the owner. The cop is taught to exhaust all options before
using his weapon,that did not happen. Cops fault the dog died by gunshot , owners fault for the dog being outside.

If your done arguing your single point so be it, feel free to argue any of the others I stated.

Officers located May driving along U.S. Highway 93 in Twin Falls County, and he tried to ditch them in a high-speed chase. Spike strips helped
eventually bring May’s car to a stop. Hassani approached the car but had trouble seeing inside, as its windows were tinted. Concerned that May would
use a weapon or use his car as a weapon, Hassani fired one shot through the driver’s-side front window.

While I can understand the love of animals, I dig my cats and my cows, people need to check their animals.

This past year I was walking down the road to the far end of the property, I had a .357 holstered with me. One of the neighbors up here has 10-12
dogs, they rescue and relocate, at least they used to now they tend to keep. Anyway I'm strolling along not really paying attention to much other
than the fence lines since we own almost all the land on both sides of the road between the house and the far hayfield where I was going when a dog
jumps out of the brush barking and growling. I knew the dog, I have had it run out at my atv when I rode by more than once but being on foot caught
me off guard. I stepped back off the road against the fence, it moved forward onto the grass, so I shot it where it stood. I took the collar off and
w alked to the neighbors and explained what happened then took care of the body. Point is, that dog is the product of the owners. If they checked
their animals this situation wouldn't have happened.

While I do like animals I will not be threatened by one. I'm sure my way of thinking won't be overly popular but it is how I feel and how I will
react. That dog didn't have to die, the owner allowed that to happen by not keeping his dog in check.

drivers1492
While I can understand the love of animals, I dig my cats and my cows, people need to check their animals.

This past year I was walking down the road to the far end of the property, I had a .357 holstered with me. One of the neighbors up here has 10-12
dogs, they rescue and relocate, at least they used to now they tend to keep. Anyway I'm strolling along not really paying attention to much other
than the fence lines since we own almost all the land on both sides of the road between the house and the far hayfield where I was going when a dog
jumps out of the brush barking and growling. I knew the dog, I have had it run out at my atv when I rode by more than once but being on foot caught
me off guard. I stepped back off the road against the fence, it moved forward onto the grass, so I shot it where it stood. I took the collar off and
w alked to the neighbors and explained what happened then took care of the body. Point is, that dog is the product of the owners. If they checked
their animals this situation wouldn't have happened.

While I do like animals I will not be threatened by one. I'm sure my way of thinking won't be overly popular but it is how I feel and how I will
react. That dog didn't have to die, the owner allowed that to happen by not keeping his dog in check.

dogs are pack animals and will respond accordingly if they sense you are scared they will attempt to dominate......im betting if you had acted like
the leader of the pack the dog would have backed down and sub-missed to you.

years ago late at night in a rural area i had to pitbulls approached me growling aggressively, i was alone and nobody around,i did not have a gun so
i faced them and in a dominating voice told them to sit...they both responded immediately,they both sat and let me walk pass,then they wandered off
doing their thing...in saying that a grew up in belgium in the country and there were some seriously scary dogs there so from a young age i learnt how
to deal with dogs without resorting to violence

1 - On a jury trial, the jurors do NOT know the defendent's prior criminal history. This is a double-edged sword because on one hand, if the jury
did know the history they may be influenced/biased against an innocent person who is repeatedly set-up, victimized or otherwise hood-winked or made a
patsy. On the other hand, not knowing the history allows many criminals to go free. Absolute justice isn't possible either way.

2 - I still blame the dog-owner for being an unresponsible pet-owner.

3 - If I was the cop's supervisor, he'd be taken off of street duty permanently. He has too many "issues" it appears from what we've seen so
far. BUT! What is it we have NOT seen so far? I'm sure his career has had more than these two events. Were there ever any extraordinary events in
his career that he actually SAVED somebody? We'll never know the whole story. We can only use the information we have at hand. At hand, we see a
copper who is afraid and that apprehension can cause more serious mistakes down the line. Take him off the street.

Just because he did some good in the past does not excuse when he incorrectly uses a firearm. If i did that I would get a felony most likely and would
never be allowed a firearm again. Does he get that punishment?
This cop obviously is trigger happy and scared of dogs. So shouldn't it be the PD's fault for sending someone not qualified to handle the situation?
Why is he still on the street after the first mis fire? I can't fire into some ones car and get away with it but yet he did and then went on a killed
a dog.
But yet it is the owners fault that his dog was SHOT, yes it was his fault the dog was OUTSIDE. Not his fault that led to the dog getting shot, what
led to the dog getting shot was a unqualified cop responding to the call and then discharged his firearm at the slightest threat.

I have no argument there and I agree that you may be correct. My thing is I have no reason to concern myself with being the aggressor or dominate in
situations like this where I live. I carry that pistol for situations like this as well as protecting livestock. If people would simply train their
animals these situations would be few and far between. It is not, nor should it be my responsibility to have to take action to make a "pet" not be
aggressive towards me unless I am causing it's owner harm or intruding on the owners property without cause. In my situation I was on the road a
trained animal would have either ignored me or barked remaining on their property. It's the owners fault. The dog should have been trained
properly.

Really sad situation, loss of the dog especially because they don't know better, it's up to their owner. Wish it was managed better. It's what I
suggest to people clinic wise, keep your dogs leashed, outside of the home if not fenced. In a legal light or not(corruption action) cops may see the
dog/s as dangerous and act. Same for other outside dangers, even people responding to a barking dog, or out in the country the "runners", etc.

People are pointing towards issues with the officer of his past. We'll have to see how it develops.

Location is south of me or I'd have more personal details about the breaking situation but it looks like the FB page is covering a lot on this -
see here - There was a big protest. Also, there may be a city council meeting Tues.

They seem to get along fine without drawing a weapon and shooting Fido.

Because they're trained to do it. It's encouraged as a tactic. They're taught that they can't be held liable in any way for shooting a dog.
They're told they can always get away with it. The only thing that can come back on them is the cost of the dog. They can't be made to pay for vet
care. They can't be made to pay for pain, suffering or loss. It's like shooting a suitcase or couch. No one sues for it because the lawyer's
consultation fee on the first visit will cost more than you will get back. So it's a 'no brainer'.

The point of shooting your dog is to get a point across to you. It's to hurt you. And in a way that they can get away with each and every time. It's
to teach you who's boss in a violent and shocking way.

It probably goes back to what we laughingly called the "Batman" training films we had to watch in the Army. It reminded me of those shop films with
people running their hands through a bandsaw. The idea is, if you want to do a "dynamic entry" and reduce the likelihood of anyone firing back, you
pick someone easy to take out and promptly maim them in a gruesome, loud, horrifying fashion that leaves them screaming and flailing around. (The
reason we called them "Batman" films is that this hardcase Rambo Wayne actor guy would boom into the room and whack someone, and when he did they'd
superimpose some comment like "Shock!" "Gore!" or whatnot like "Biff!" "Pow!" in the old 60's Batman show)

The shock of seeing this "freezes" the people in the room as their minds try to process that you just whupped out a BMF, screamed "Banzai!" and
gutted Uncle Hamid or blew some teenager's left leg to a bloody fog with the second dust round in your 12 gauge. They cycle back and forth between
the horror of what you did and the fact that Hamid is running around the room trailing giblets and major organs screaming at the top of his lungs.
It's all they can think about. It doesn't leave them a lot of processing cycles to deal with the fact that your buddies are storming the building.

The civilian version of it is to kill Fido. Knock the door down, maim the dogs. It's for "safety". And, of course, if you aren't sufficiently
cringy and bootlicking, they shoot Fido to teach you who's boss. And it's totally career-friendly, because you can't do anything about it. If you
DO try to stop them, why, that's bonus points, because now they have a totally open shot at YOU that will be backed by IA and the DA. So you'll sit
there and take it as the medicine you deserve, to teach you a lesson. And for safety. Even if the dog is running and they shoot it in the back, they
get away with it. Even if the dog is chained, or penned. They could stomp your poodle and get away with it. Because the law allows them too, and it's
the tactic du jour for inducing emotional shock and compliance.

They seem to get along fine without drawing a weapon and shooting Fido.

Because they're trained to do it. It's encouraged as a tactic. They're taught that they can't be held liable in any way for shooting a dog.
They're told they can always get away with it. The only thing that can come back on them is the cost of the dog. They can't be made to pay for vet
care. They can't be made to pay for pain, suffering or loss. It's like shooting a suitcase or couch. No one sues for it because the lawyer's
consultation fee on the first visit will cost more than you will get back. So it's a 'no brainer'.

The point of shooting your dog is to get a point across to you. It's to hurt you. And in a way that they can get away with each and every time. It's
to teach you who's boss in a violent and shocking way.

It probably goes back to what we laughingly called the "Batman" training films we had to watch in the Army. It reminded me of those shop films with
people running their hands through a bandsaw. The idea is, if you want to do a "dynamic entry" and reduce the likelihood of anyone firing back, you
pick someone easy to take out and promptly maim them in a gruesome, loud, horrifying fashion that leaves them screaming and flailing around. (The
reason we called them "Batman" films is that this hardcase Rambo Wayne actor guy would boom into the room and whack someone, and when he did they'd
superimpose some comment like "Shock!" "Gore!" or whatnot like "Biff!" "Pow!" in the old 60's Batman show)

The shock of seeing this "freezes" the people in the room as their minds try to process that you just whupped out a BMF, screamed "Banzai!" and
gutted Uncle Hamid or blew some teenager's left leg to a bloody fog with the second dust round in your 12 gauge. They cycle back and forth between
the horror of what you did and the fact that Hamid is running around the room trailing giblets and major organs screaming at the top of his lungs.
It's all they can think about. It doesn't leave them a lot of processing cycles to deal with the fact that your buddies are storming the building.

The civilian version of it is to kill Fido. Knock the door down, maim the dogs. It's for "safety". And, of course, if you aren't sufficiently
cringy and bootlicking, they shoot Fido to teach you who's boss. And it's totally career-friendly, because you can't do anything about it. If you
DO try to stop them, why, that's bonus points, because now they have a totally open shot at YOU that will be backed by IA and the DA. So you'll sit
there and take it as the medicine you deserve, to teach you a lesson. And for safety. Even if the dog is running and they shoot it in the back, they
get away with it. Even if the dog is chained, or penned. They could stomp your poodle and get away with it. Because the law allows them too, and it's
the tactic du jour for inducing emotional shock and compliance.

ok then thx for painting a rosy picture for us......your analogy is shocking but sadly pretty much on the money...

It's popular now, but it'll be more so as time goes by. You get a no-knock, they're going to shoot the dogs, even if they're Maltese or Poms, just
because they can, and it gets your attention, and they know you can do nothing about it.

And as much fun as these cops think shooting peoples dogs are, one of these dog owners
might be a serious psycho and actually hold a severe grudge.
One that might set this persons mind into crazy mode and this wack-job might decide to hunt the
cops responsible for killing his dogs.

people dont think about this kind of stuff. It could happen,crazier things happen everyday

IMO I would have pulled out my gun and shot the cop to wound not to kill. For intrusion and murdering my family member. If they treat their dogs as
a officer, I treat my pets like family. No difference.

One more reason I'm armed to the teeth, and promote gun ownership.

When police are getting shot more and more by citizens in high numbers, we may eventually be left alone by LEOs and flip the fear for once and the
people gain more control of our country.

I am so sick to hear of this story. I hope that that cop gets fired!

Exactly the reason for gun control. For morons like you who think that a dog is more important than a human being.

Would you let a 3 yo run around outside unsupervised? Why is this dog owner letting a dog run around unsupervised?

My backyard growing up was 1000 acres+ when I was a young child. I'm thinking you live in a city? In 10 sq miles I had less than 10 neighbors , and
all my dogs were trained. Being in a big city I could see how most have living quarters and limits, sad. I don't think that what happened to this
gentleman would happen where I live. It sucks about this guys and his dog. But they seem to be not correctly trained and the owner was possible a
crappy master. I was directing my reply as a general assumption on how cops handle their situation, and how I may retort.

Your lack of sense is horrible for not asking for an explanation from me or discuss properly... Your calling me a "moron"??

Sounds like a name caller like you are the ones that I'm scared of first. I own a gun and cause no threat, yet your first response is to threaten me
first by calling me a name. Shame on you! I certainly think your lost on my concept and hope you learn that calling someone a name that is not there
own.... You lose immediately.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.